>>>>> "GW" == Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de> writes:
>> while reading the 132 pages PDF manual of BFO
>> (http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/projects/bfo/manual/) I've been
>> wondering how widely used/accepted such recommendation is, as the basis
>> of any ontology. Is it a proposal, a de-facto standard, a good starting
>> point?
GW> I think it's just a (not very elaborate) proposal, and probably not a
GW> good starting point, as its formalism seems to be pretty weak (despite
GW> the name "formal ontology").
GW> A better choice, which is, of course, also just a proposal (as there is
GW> no de-facto standard in this area), is described in
GW> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Formal_Ontology
Hmmm, gfo looks very good. It's a little worrying that there is so little
activity on the mailing list though, or in the svn...
Phil